Wednesday, August 3, 2016

I have a short piece in Nature Geoscience with the title 'Climate change as a wicked social problem'. Here is the link http://rdcu.be/jvEI.

I argue that climate change has been defined as a problem with a solution, following the successful example of the ozone layer. Applying the conceptual pair of tame and wicked problems I make the case that whereas ozone protection can be seen as a tame problem (which has a clearly specified solution), climate change cannot. It is a classical wicked problem that only can be managed better or worse. But influential actors who applied the same logic from ozone to climate were ignorant of social science research that could have prevented this colossal error of framing. This framing error has led to the belief that scientific consensus drives policy and that any distraction from 'the science' is the reason for a lack of progress.

It is high time the social sciences (not only economics, who have been the only visible social science discipline in the IPCC) start engaging with the issue of climate change on their own terms. All too often they have been defining the issue of climate change in terms of climate science, forgetting the unique contributions they can make.

144
comments:

The social sciences should refrain ENTIRELY from engaging in the war of words (and suppression of "skeptics" and "deniers") over the idea of "climate change", because they don't know what they are doing, at all. They take the climate scientists' word that the "science is settled", when the truth is just the opposite. I know, after all this time, that no words alone can make you see that you are part of the insanity, not part of the solution, so long as you take the "global warming greenhouse effect" and "carbon dioxide is pollution" as received gospel from the "experts".

I completely agree with your definition of climate change as a wicked problem, as well as with your critique of the dominance of "the science". I guess it is 20 years or more now since for example HvStorch and Nico Stehr argued that social sciences should engage more with the issue of climate change. And indeed, social sciences and humanities produced many studies ever since in fields like science studies, philosophy of science, sociology, anthropology, history, geography, religious and literary studies, landscape research and many other disciplines. To paraphrase your statement: maybe it is high time the natural sciences start engaging with the issue of climate change in terms of social sciences and humanities - instead of dismissing them as "not scientific", "ideological" or simply "opinion based". The problem is that Science lost its "rightful place", as Benessia, Funtowicz, Ravetz, Pereira, van der Sluijs and others argue in the recent publication "Science on the verge". Instead of building a Malignot line in defense of science, the authors of the book suggest to open science to other forms of expertise such as extended peer review or citizen science. The study of the huge body of existing social science / humanities literature on climate could help a lot in achieving this goal and in understanding the wicked problem of climate change in new ways.

Of course, it is a wicked problem. Our society is "based" on energy, mostly from fossil fuel. It has been so since the Industrial Revolution, at least.

A change of this dependency is a disruption. Such a disruption is frightening, maybe painful, and will change a lot, everywhere.

However, I want to introduce another point. Not sure, if it was discussed here. The energy sector is not the only part, not even the biggest one, that is changing. I see MUCH BIGGER changes induced by "google and co". Mobile Internet, huge internet companies, giant data collections about everything, interconnections everywhere, machine learning, do change our lives gradually more and more. It is changing the complete societies. These changes are so deep and much more severe than different power from sockets or an electric car powered by wind turbines.

And this Internet, the exchange of opinion, algorithms that "publish" opionions, the marginalization of traditional medias, etc. does also change the "science". This "citizen science" (a misnomer, because scientists are citizens) is only possible because of the Web, the social web, the huge amount of open information in Web.

I think, you have to include the complete change of transformation of Knowledge, Science, News, Information by the Internet. I think these changes are part of current revolution which is comparable with the Industrial revolution. I really think, you have to include it.

I guess my argument is a historical one, pointing to the lasting influence of a dominant framing that was provided by natural scientists. It is true that in the meantime social scientists have joined the research landscape on climate change but I would say this was too late to correct the initial mistake. What is more, many social scientists would not even recognize the initial framing mistake, repeating the mantra of climate scientists.

When you say "To paraphrase your statement: maybe it is high time the natural sciences start engaging with the issue of climate change in terms of social sciences and humanities - instead of dismissing them as "not scientific", "ideological" or simply "opinion based" -- this is likely to fall on deaf ears with most climate scientists given their unique disciplinary orientation and skills. And when it come to that, it has to be said that the climate scientists' narrative has been more compelling to social scientists than vice versa.

So when I wrote it is high time the social sciences take their rightful place in this debate, it is first and foremost a critical reflection on their difficulty, even failure, to do justice to their disciplinary expertise.

I'm not entirely convinced that a meaningful discussion about this is possible (apologies for the tone of that and more than happy to be proven wrong) but - as Reiner already knows - I've written about his article.

Not only were the same people who are trying to stop action on climate change involved, but the arguments were pretty much the same, well, ok everybunny is a lot older than in 1985.

You might learn something by looking up the involvement and positions of Sherry Rowland, Susan Solomon and Mario Molina on both issues and on the other side Fred Singer and Fred Seitz just to name two or three.

Amusingly the base argument, contrary to what you say, is the same, on the one side that the world will end without fossil fuels (CFCs) on the other that renewables (HFCs) can take up the slack with a bit of time and subsidy. The CFC phaseout was driven by putting a social cost on CFCs.

The last two commentators have been involved in a twitter thread yesterday which had some comments about my Nature correspondence. I could not see an engagement with the argument I put forward. Instead, distractions from the argument via fantasies and sweeping statements were made, such as Gavin Schmidt's who said about me: "His standard conclusion is that scientists are to blame for everything."

These commentators also seem to think that I am against advocacy in climate change discourse and would now ironically adopt an advocacy position. Perhaps it is news to them that I as a co-author of the Hartwell Paper have long made clear what kind of advocacy I subscribe to.

I would hope that they have another look, read and think a bit more before giving in to their impulses.

BTW, it seems a bit rich to ask if I was involved about the discussion about the ozone issue.

I would hope that they have another look, read and think a bit more before giving in to their impulses.

Suggesting that we're simply giving in to impulses is a bit unfortunate. I'll summarise the point I made in my post and you can respond to them, or not.

1. I think you're wrong about this being a wicked problem, at least in terms of how you defined it in your article. There are clearly aspects of it that are very complex and difficult to resolve, but that doesn't make it wicked. The key factor in anthropogenically-driven climate change is the emission of greenhouse gases - mainly CO2. Addressing this requires reductions in emissions, ultimately getting them to zero - or very close. This is the case whether you cast this as a temperature target, or a carbon budget. We don't have to choose to reduce emissions, but that is what is required if we do choose to reduce the risks associated with anthropogenically-driven climate change.

2. You seem to object to Gavin's sweeping statement about your standard conclusion being that scientists are to blame for everything. It might be slightly hyperbolic, but it doesn't seem unreasonable given what you were arguing for in your article. You weren't simply arguing that there were other contributions that could be made by social scientists; you were explicitly arguing that the problem was how it's been defined in the past, mainly driven by natural/physical scientists, that it is a social, not a scientific, problem and that the contribution by social scientists must recognised and assembled. You are advocating for a reduced role for physical/natural scientists and an enhanced role for social scientists.

3. As Chris Hope pointed out on Twitter, you appear to have largely ignored what is already being done. There are social scientists working on Integrated Assessment Models and much of the work related to Representative Concentration Pathways involves social scientists, in addition to much other related work by social scientists. In fact, some of what you were dismissing in your article (consensus messaging, for example) is largely work done by social scientists. So, it certainly appears that you're not really arguing for more involvement by social scientists in general; it appears that you're arguing for more involvement by social scientits with whom you identify.

I've written this a bit quickly as I have to go and catch a train. Hope it makes sense. I also hope that you will have another look, read and think a bit more before giving in to your impulses. :-)

When I am thinking of social sciences dealing withb the issue of climate change, then I am less thinking of Integrated Assessment Models - these are essentially natural and economic science concepts filled with some numbers provided by social scientists. These models serve their purpose, but they do not add conceptually to the ideas of natural scientists that essentially everything may be put in numbers and be computable. Eventually this leads to a form of climatic determinism, albeit disguised in modern terminology.What we should ask is - what is the unique addition which social sciences could contribute to a better understanding of ... what? Not of the link between emission and weather stats change. Maybe obout how the impact is filtered by social change? Or by change in the social and economic world? Another significant topic is the social (cultural) construction of climate change. For instance, where does the idea come from that physicists would be able to model the social world in mathematical terms? There is much more, which can be added, which is related to social dynamics, to dynamics of perceptions, of power of one group of supposedly knowledgeable people with limited scope over other social actors. What is the role of profound insight into a narrow segment of problems but lack of depths in other fields, in forming views?

There are indeed some efforts in studyiing issues of that sort; they are usually not very welll known - but it would be good if such analysis would be better considered in the process of forming preferences and will and taking decisions.

What we should ask is - what is the unique addition which social sciences could contribute to a better understanding of ... what?

Agreed, but this isn't - IMO - what Reiner's article did. It was an explicit attempt to delegitimise the role of natural/physical scientists and an argument that social scientists must be recognised and assembled.

Well, as far as I can tell, there is nothing stopping those interested, from studying what they think we should understand better. There's also nothing wrong with trying to highlight what these things things that we should understand better are. What it does not require - IMO - is arguing that the role of natural/physical should be diminshed, and that the role of social scientists should be enhanced. It simply requires doing work that is actually worth recognising.

And Then There's Physics - I noticed that you wrote "You are advocating for a reduced role for physical/natural scientists and an enhanced role for social scientists". I am a bit puzzled. First, which role in doing what? Not in disentangling the remaining issues in natural climate science, I guess. Certainly in studying the role of social dynamics and framing of the climate change issue, right?Second, would "argueing" instead of "advocating" a better wording? There must be a difference - one may be that "advocating" is pointing to a hidden a-priori set agenda, while "argueing" is more of an open exchange of arguments - or is my understanding of the English language insufficient?

Hans,Have you read Reiner's article? It is explicitly arguing that climate change has been incorrectly defined by natural/physical scientists, that it is a social, not a scientific problem, and that we need to recognise and role of social scientists and assemble them. This seems to be explicitly arguing for a reduced role for natural/physical sciencists, and an enhanced role for social scientists.

No, I think "advocating" is fine, although I don't think "advocating" implies a hidden agenda and I'm certainly not suggesting the agenda was hidden, it appeared blatantly obvious.

Thanks, TTP -may I ask you to explain mea) the difference between "argueing" and "advocating"b) what "role" you are referring to. [I guess Reiner will explain himself, what he has in mind.]

The fomer is just to educate me; the second is possibly a critical issue; I have the impression that the word is loaded with different meanings (a challlenge for social sciences?): maybe - role ina) interpreting/educating/teachingwarning the public/policymaker? b) guiding climate policies?c) completing knowledge about the dynamis and sensitivities of the climate system?d) completing the knowledge about the significance of climate for social life and organisation?e) disentangling the function and agenda of interested parties?f) disentangling the social and scientific constructions of climate change and impact?

Certainly there are more possible roles.

For me, climate change is no longer a scientific problem; the basic mechanisms have been suffficiently explored; various details (such as change of storms, dynamcial role of clouds and radiation, a narrow window for the sensitivity of the climate system, to name a few) have not been sufficiently understood, and will not be sufficiently understood for quite a while; climate change has for sure entered the social and political arena; its social and political dynamic needs to be studied by social scientists much more than so far. Societal decisions are taken in the political arena; scientists have provided the knowledge needed to assess the problem and the available options. Scientists are no longer needed for political decisions. These decisions will depend on processes of negotiations, balancing interestes, comparing wth other problems and other real-world aspects.In other words: physicists (and other natural scientists), back into your baracks! If you individually want to be part of the social processes of choosing among options and of deciding, come back without the attiitude of knowing better than others of what is an appropriate response to the problem. The same applies for social scientists, even if their field of knowledge is different from that of natural scientists but also important.

Hans,Advocating for something typically requires making an argument. You can use, "argue for" if you wish, but that's just another way of saying "advocate".

I don't know what role Reiner was envisaging, but - in my view - anyone who undertakes research has a role to play in informing the public and policy makers. That's really all I would mean by the term in this context. In my view, noone has any right to be involved in the actual decision making process other than as someone who provides information to those who have a mandate to actually make decisions.

In other words: physicists (and other natural scientists), back into your baracks!

This is problematic, IMO. Arguing for the inclusion of others is, of course, fine (although I'm still not sure how they're being excluded). Arguing that there are relevant views that are not being heard is fine. Arguing that some should now go back into their barracks is - IMO - not.

If you individually want to be part of the social processes of choosing among options and of deciding, come back without the attiitude of knowing better than others of what is an appropriate response to the problem.

I don't think you really get to define how others should behave in order to be part of the social process; we're all part of it whether you like it, or not. Also, I think the above is a bit of a strawman. If someone says "if you do X, Y will probably happen", they're not telling you not to do "X". It's not, for example, arrogant to point out that there are risks associated with continuing to emit CO2 and that addressing this would require reducing emissions. That doesn't mean that we have to do so. It doesn't specify how we should do so if we do choose to do so. It doesn't even mean that the consequences can't be benign, or even positive; it is simply indicating that there are potentially negative consequences associated with continuing to emit CO2 and avoiding these would require reducing emissions. We, as a society, can - of course - choose not to do so.

I must admit that I do find it ironic that your response to a sense that physicists (and other natural scientists) are arrogant is to argue for their exclusion.

This I think goes to Bertrand Russell's dictum that science cannot say anything about values. Science can tell us what will happen (or in this case give us a broad range of possible outcomes). We then can choose what if anything to do about it. Perhaps where this gets problematic is when scientists try to imbue their values with the authority of science, or imply it by their activism. It is not hard to find scientists like Hansen who have tried to use their authority as scientists to advance their political views.

Consider your doctor in 1990 telling you to curtail your saturated fat intake to reduce your cardiac risk. He has the science establishment behind him. First of course, the science establishment was almost certainly biased in their views at the time. But the doctor then falls back on: "you will feel better and loose weight even if it doesn't improve your cardiac health." OK, but the patient is still the ultimate decider about his own choices. The doctor who tries too hard to dictate to the patient will simply destroy his credibility. Perhaps that's what Reiner is saying.

However, I'm not sure social scientists are any better qualified to do much except as facilitators. This issue must be resolved in the political arena and it will be a very messy process with the outcome being almost certainly a muddle through one.

TTP: " It's not, for example, arrogant to point out that there are risks associated with continuing to emit CO2 and that addressing this would require reducing emissions."Is this is all what can contribute climate scientists? It's well known and there is no reason that theire role in the following process could be a special one. What would matter: How great are the risks, what would mean a tighter interval for TCR ( ECS). But we didn't see some progress in this central question since the 1st IPCC report!! So indeed: I can't see some substantive contribution to the "wicked problem" from climate science anymore.Perhaps it would be better ( as Hans said): go home to your barracks and deliver the field to others!

"physicists (and other natural scientists), back into your baracks! If you individually want to be part of the social processes of choosing among options and of deciding, come back without the attiitude of knowing better than others of what is an appropriate response to the problem."

This sounds equivalent to "scientists, go back into the ivory tower!" Is that what you meant? I for one am happy that scientist are no longer confined to the ivory tower (though they mostly can if they wish to). I'm happy, as a scientist-lecturer, to be part of the public debate about science. I wouldn't claim to know better than others what is an appropriate response to the problem, but I do think that scientists can play a useful role in the public debate by highlighting what's known about the issue (the diagnosis so to speak), since many people in the public debate misdiagnose the problem and thereby come to incorrect conclusions and misguided response strategies.

Just as a health scientist would rightly point out the health benefits and side effects of vaccinations, thereby preventing as much as possible certain myths (misdiagnoses) from propagating. or would you rather that scientists not speak up agt all when anti-vaxxers claim that vaccinations cause autism and when others would claim that smoking isn't harmful? Back into your baracks, health scientists!?!

I sure hope not. Please join the public debate, scientists, to make sure this debate remains as reality based as realistically possible! But of course, be aware of your position as a scientists and distinguish when you talk about your area of expertise vs when you're just giving your personal (policy) opinion.

I do not see how you can misconstrue my argument as one which wants to delegitimize the climate sciences. The point in my piece is a historical one, about applying lessons from one case to the other. Ozone was the exemplar, applied to climate change. This was done not only by scientists, but also by policy-makers, activists, and even social scientists. My 2011 book bears the marks of this view as I had been influenced by these actors who were visible in both cases.

The conclusion I draw is that this framing mistake led the discourse down a very unproductive path. I offer a conceptual tool to understand the difference between both cases, tame and wicked problems. Contrary to what you are saying, we do not know when we will have succeeded in solving climate change as a problem. No matter what progress we make with regard to anthropogenic climate change, climate change will still be observed and we cannot assume that all natural change will be benign. You focus on anthropogenic aspects only and even here it is not clear what would count as problem solution. Zero emissions will not limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

I completely agree with Hans in calling upon the social sciences to make clear what their contribution can be (apart from repeating what the physical sciences are telling us). My point is that we need to re-frame climate change as a social problem, not a problem for science. People who care about practical solutions realize that desirable goals or targets need to be implemented and this is a process in which expertise from the social sciences is required.

> I do not see how you can misconstrue my argument as one which wants to delegitimize the climate sciences.

AT did not speak of any argument's "want," only what it *does* - "an explicit attempt to delegitimise the role of natural/physical scientists and an argument that social scientists must be recognised and assembled."

This attempt is made explicit here:

[I]nfluential actors who applied the same logic from ozone to climate were ignorant of social science research that could have prevented this colossal error of framing.

Compare and contrast with a more recent attempt above:

The last two commentators have been involved in a twitter thread yesterday which had some comments about my Nature correspondence. I could not see an engagement with the argument I put forward. Instead, distractions from the argument via fantasies and sweeping statements were made, such as Gavin Schmidt's who said about me: "His standard conclusion is that scientists are to blame for everything."

***

Even if we can’t derive policies from scientific insights, scientific insights sure suffice to establish policy conditions. For more on this, see:

This should suffice to cut through the whole "but it's a wicked problem" mess, as both in the case of CFC and AGW, "scientific insights" can offer us conditions that have to abide by any rational policy.

The whole "derive policy" line of argument is first and foremost a caricature, and the usual "reframe all the things" move is underwhelming to say the least.

Reiner,I do not see how you can misconstrue my argument as one which wants to delegitimize the climate sciences.

Possibly because I don't think I did?

The conclusion I draw is that this framing mistake led the discourse down a very unproductive path.

Even if true (and I'm not convinced) how does framing it in your article as you did help to lead it down a more constructive path? Antagonising an entire research community seems unlikely to be particularly effective.

Contrary to what you are saying, we do not know when we will have succeeded in solving climate change as a problem.

How do you know this? I think many regard the basics as pretty robust and pretty simple; reduce emissions, aim to get to zero - or close. Of course, solving may be the wrong word, as we will probaby be dealing with aspects of it for a long time, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand what would be required to do so.

No matter what progress we make with regard to anthropogenic climate change, climate change will still be observed and we cannot assume that all natural change will be benign.

I think you're partly redefining terminology (do you mean natural climate change, or weather?) and partly introducing possibilities that many regard as unlikely - the current best evidence suggests that the primary drivers of climate change today is us. Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that the paradigm is "anthropogenic - bad; natural - benign", but the anthropogenic aspect is the one over which we have some control, and is the one that is expected to dominate in the coming decades.

Zero emissions will not limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

Hmm, yes, our current understanding is that it would. It may well be impossible in reality to get to zero emissions fast enough (which is largely why there is now so much discussion of negative emissions) but that doesn't mean that getting to zero emission will not limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

My point is that we need to re-frame climate change as a social problem, not a problem for science.

And I disagree. It's neither entirely a social problem or entirely a science problem; it seems to me that it is both. That's why I think your framing of this is counter-productive.

"In other words: physicists (and other natural scientists), back into your baracks! If you individually want to be part of the social processes of choosing among options and of deciding, come back without the attitude of knowing better than others of what is an appropriate response to the problem. "

Hans, you have no idea how tempting it is to Godwin the thread right there. . . .Think about it.

"The conclusion I draw is that this framing mistake led the discourse down a very unproductive path."

I think sums i up rather well. The analogy to dietary saturated fat is another good one I think. The political process needs above all else unbiased information to help people make up their minds on actions. I question whether "science communication" even really adds much. The media is so full of alarming stories these days from terrorism, antibiotic resistance, financial crashes, debt crises, habitat destruction, overfishing, deforestation (which turned out to be not wholly true), zika and the hundreds of modern plagues that were going to pose a huge danger, peak oil, and climate change. The discount most people apply to alarming messages is I think very high these days.

Eli, Your choice of examples shows some bias I think. That's part of Reiner's point about CFC framing. Most of these things you mention had no real benefit except perhaps somewhat lower cost. Abundant energy has very high benefits as any wealthy individual can tell you or any consumer of air travel.

Do you think the saturated fat analogy is a good one? People seem to like fat in their diets and are reluctant to give it up. But there may be benefits to doing so, or maybe not depending on historically biased science.

I think Reiner is right. "Climate change policy" is like unemployment it will remain as a topic in politics.Politicians, experts, scientists, non-scientists, activists, alarmists, skeptics, neo-sceptics, non-sceptics will argue within their school of thought about solutions. Yes, I think it is a wicked problem that needs social scientists perspective.My question for Reiner as a social scientist would be who is a climate scientist at all. Are people who calculate the the social costs of carbon climate scientists? Are experts from greenpeace climate scientists. Are people from the GWPF climate scientists? Are all scientists at PIK climate scientists? Are all the people who work on the summary for policymakers climate scientists?I do think to define climate science at all is nowadays already a wicked problem.

It might be a good idea for you to define what exactly you mean by de-legitimizing science.

Likewise, the term 'ignorant' seems to upset you. But is is well justified, as it is true they lacked an awareness or knowledge of social science contributions. The framing of climate change as a tame problem was done without without too much reflection. Matters were not helped by social scientists who did not engage with climate change for a long time.

TPP

Are you really saying we could in principle solve the climate problem but maybe not in a timeframe that matters?

Do you want to limit the definition of climate change to its anthropogenic aspects?

TTP –I think we are coming closer what all this is about – namely WHAT CONSTITUTES THE CLIMATE PROBLEM. You have a rather narrow framing, namely: emissions are up, lead to climate change; consequences are bad: If we limit the change to 2 or 1.5 deg C, then the consequences are less bad – thus the solution is clear (reduce emissions) and the problem is … not the change but the way to reduce the emissions.

I would subscribe to this to some extent – and conclude: ok, physicists, you have done your part. You are welcome to join the public debate as citizens, but you have nothing special to bring it, after you have explained your view of the problem and your solution. (That’s what I meant with – back to the barracks; take off your uniforms and medals, and come back without claims that you know better about the solution than others.)

But for me, this is not the real problem – how we implement your solution, but how we deal with the variety of challenges, environmental and social, at the same time. Your narrow framing is is 1-dimensional, and it operates with the illusion that there would be only one issue, no other environmental crises, no other social and political issues. But reducing emissions has impact on other issues. Indeed, there are many other challenges observed or perceived by people. These are culturally conditioned – as your “climate problem” is culturally conditioned by the “culture of physicists” – and differently weighted in their significance; this limits the way to respond, to accept your or other solutions.

Think of nuclear physicists in the 1950s and 60s, who foresaw a historical period of no concerns about energy supply. They were the experts; they claimed to be entitled to leadership (towards nuclear power based energy supply), looked down to “lay people” who were concerned with side effects of “the solution”, and finally lost their authority, at least for the time being. Emissions went up.

Reiner, I remember Roger Pielke jr. stressing the fact that the IPCC defined climate change as including all variations, whereas UNFCC used the term only for anthropogenic change. Since non-anthropgenic climate change is understood as the formation of intermittedn deviations from a normal, social dealing with such variations are less of a challlene, as in most cases societies (and ecosystems) will be adapted. Man-made climate change is an ongoing -on the human time horizon- unending change (GHGs) or a change towards a new "normal" (e.g., reduction of aerosols) - adapation will often not be present, thus a challenge

Reiner,Are you really saying we could in principle solve the climate problem but maybe not in a timeframe that matters?

No, I think you've somewhat over-interpreted what I said. All I'm really saying is that we have a very good idea of what is driving current climate change and that thing is our emissions. Therefore we can define a metric - reduce emissions, eventually getting them to zero. In other words, there is a stopping rule, despite what you said in your article. Whether or not we choose to actually implement something that would do this, how we would do it, how fast we would do it, etc are not questions that science can answer, but that doesn't mean that it's a wicked problem. Complex, difficult, sure but not - by your definition, at least - a wicked problem (in my view, at least).

Do you want to limit the definition of climate change to its anthropogenic aspects?

Clearly there are many things that can cause our climate to change. However, our current understanding is that the dominant effect over the coming decades is likely to be us (assuming that we continue to emit GHGs). So, no, I don't want to limit the definition to anthropogenic aspects only. However, given that the dominant factor over the coming decades is likely to be us, and given that it is the factor over which we have some control, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be the current focus.

Hans,But for me, this is not the real problem – how we implement your solution, but how we deal with the variety of challenges, environmental and social, at the same time.

Of course. I didn't say otherwise. I'm not the one arguing for the exclusion of others. Furthermore, I haven't provided a solution (at least not in any specific sense); I've simply provided a requirement. We don't need to satisfy that requirement if we choose not to do so.

Your narrow framing is is 1-dimensional, and it operates with the illusion that there would be only one issue, no other environmental crises, no other social and political issues.

Just because I don't mention something doesn't mean that I don't think it is relevant. The dominant driver of climate change is our emissions. We seem to agree about that. How we deal with this (as I think I have said many, many times) is clearly very complex and doesn't necessarily take precedence over other important issues. However, this is not an argument for excluding people from the discussions that would inform how we deal with these issues.

Let me remind you that the issue here isn't me arguing that social scientists should be excluded; I already think that we need to consider this from many different perspectives. The issue is the suggestions that physicists/natural scientists should be excluded. If you can't make your argument without first excluding a group who say things you find inconcenient, maybe your argument isn't very strong?

TTP,I value the discussion we have had here - we may not have convinced each other but maybe we have reached better understanding. I guess for the time being we are done - many thanks for a good exchange of views and arguments.

Reiner,In principle solvable, but maybe not in this world. So is it a problem that has a solution in models only?

I claim no expertise as to whether or not it is solveable in reality. That - in my view - is a combination of engineering, politics, societal factors, etc. I'm simply suggesting that the scientific evidence indicates what would be required. I also think it is important that this evidence continues to inform how we consider this issue.

BTW, where did I say I wanted to "exclude" scientists? And from what?

That was actually a response to Hans who suggested we should go back to the barracks. However, your article argues that climate change has been mis-framed and that this is largely the fault of natural/physical scientists. Your article also argues that this is really a social problem, not a scientific one. If this isn't actually arguing for the exclusion of physical/natural scientists, it comes pretty close. It's certainly an attempt to pin some kind of blame on them for how we've dealt with this issue and seems to be explicitly arguing for a reduced role.

> It might be a good idea for you to define what exactly you mean by de-legitimizing science.

It might be a good idea to keep AT's quote in mind, Reiner: not to delegitimise science, but the role of natural/physical scientists.

Since I now can copy-paste your article, here's the part that justifies the word "deligitimize":

If social scientists had been involved significantly and from the beginning, this crucial error in categorizing climate change might have been avoided. The environmental organizations and experts involved in framing climate change and prescribing policy pathways are mainly trained in natural sciences. As such, they do not have a good understanding of complex sociotechnical systems and problems, or about processes of political and cultural change. Some social scientists on the margins have been making counter- arguments for decades, but their advice has not been taken on board [4]. Most of the social science contributions in this area come from economists whose expertise is rather narrowly focused on cost-benefit and efficiency considerations.

The first emphasis shows that your "who, me?" is unjustified. I don't think I need to provide a technical analysis based on a well-defined theorical concept to show that the claim that your op-ed deligitimizes the role of natural/physical scientists is far from the "fantasies and sweeping statements" by which you tried to delitimized AT, Eli and otters earlier in the thread.

Citation [4] leads to the Harwell paper, a paper you co-authored. I find it intriguing that you are referring to yourself as a social scientist on the margins whose advice has not been taken on board.

Your op-ed does not contain any direct citation for wicked problems. The Hartwell Paper does exploit that tack. There's one citation is a lecture by Steve Rayner, one of the authors of the Hartwell Paper, which mostly contains biographical storytelling.

It might be a good idea not to give homework to others, Reiner, when the conceptual framework you're trying to sell is so thin.

***

> [T]he term 'ignorant' seems to upset you.

Thank you for probing my mind. That means a lot to me. As far as I can follow your citations, please rest assured that the framing of AGW as a wicked problem does not seem to have been done without much reflection either.

Your argument falters on the fact that even if science can’t (arguably) tell us what to do, its insights can help us frame preconditions for any kind of problem, mess, or else.

So not only is your wicked framework thin, dear Reiner, it's mostly irrelevant.

> It might be a good idea for you to define what exactly you mean by de-legitimizing science.

It rather be "to delegitimise the role of natural/physical scientists," as AT said.

Since I can now copy-paste, here's the relevant bit from your op-ed:

If social scientists had been involved significantly and from the beginning, this crucial error in categorizing climate change might have been avoided. The environmental organizations and experts involved in framing climate change and prescribing policy pathways are mainly trained in natural sciences. As such, they do not have a good understanding of complex sociotechnical systems and problems, or about processes of political and cultural change.

You then go on about "social scientists on the margins," but it might be more prudent for me to keep to AT's, and Gavin's point first.

My own argument, which you failed to address, echoes Eli's point regarding CFCs but is more general. As soon as you interpret "scientific insights" as providing constraints or preconditions whether you solve, address or embrace an issue, a problem, a mess or else makes no logical difference.

Which leads us to the empirical part of your claim, which might also need to be addressed. What evidence do we need the "framing" you're selling to cut the AGW knot?

I have the impression we are going in circles. To repeat: I do not claim that we should understand the involvement of climate scientists in moral terms ("they are to blame", "it is their fault" etc). This is entirely your interpretation of what I have said, and I think it is clear that you are on thin ice here. I have myself been convinced that climate is like ozone, as mentioned above. To talk about "guilt" is a category error. Maybe someone wants to make such an argument about the responsibility of climate scientists, but not me.

I think my point has been granted: climate change, for some climate scientists (such as TPP) is a problem first and foremost for science. It can be solved within science, but science cannot tell us much about the real world in which the solution will have to take place. That is why it is a social problem.

I do not think that climate scientists should be excluded from what they are doing or from public discourse. But their expertise for addressing the problem is highly limited, and we need to assemble the right kind of knowledge for this task.

I hope that you are now satisfied after you so forcefully debunked the wording of Reiner.

Now we could begin talking about the substance, which you so finely circumvent so far. The role of the visible natural/physical scientists – what is it, and which would “we” like to assign to them.

We would agree, I suppose, that natural/physical scientists have a deep understanding of their field (by the way, why do you say natural/physical and not natural/biological?), but their insight into the functioning of society, in the formation of values, preferences, the usage of knowledge for creation and maintaining of power – to mention some aspects, is not better than of journalists, haircutters und taxi-drivers. Thus, the body of knowledge is a bit unbalanced, and some become to believe that because they are so capable of treating differential equations they would also be good in identifying the right ways for making the world a significantly better place for all. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Instead they are, as we say in German, merely Fachidioten, whose advice is indispensable for finding out, which consequences a decision may have in their very limited field, but hardly outside.

The latter, explaining the side-effects of carbon-based industrialization on climate, has successfully been done. We know this, at least with respect to the key aspects with few and insignificant remaining doubts (as physicists we would never doubt that there is no remaining doubt, even if that would be minuscule:-)) After this clarification: there is anthropogenic climate change, it is due to the emission of GHGs and it will continue conditional on the amount and timing of emissions; it can be reduced considerably by reducing or ending emissions, the question arises what societies will do with this knowledge. Different societies may consider the situation differently, may weigh other problems more severe etc. These are issues, which social and cultural scientists may be trained to deal and to study.

So what? – The role of physical scientists in informing society about “solutions” auf the climate “problem” will be reduced. Social scientists will add their knowledge for informing people and decision makers about consequences of options – and will learn after a while, that in some future also their role will be diminished.

Reiner,To repeat: I do not claim that we should understand the involvement of climate scientists in moral terms ("they are to blame", "it is their fault" etc). This is entirely your interpretation of what I have said, and I think it is clear that you are on thin ice here.

To repeat: if you write an article claiming that climate change has been misclassified (and hence poorly handled as a result) and that this is largely because natural scientists have dominated the discourse, it's hard not to conclude that you're blaming them for this. This isn't introducing moral terms; it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what you wrote. You'd be on thicker ice if you avoided writing things that sound like you're blaming those in another discpline if that isn't what you intended to say.

I think my point has been granted: climate change, for some climate scientists (such as TPP) is a problem first and foremost for science.

No it hasn't. This isn't what I think and I doubt it is what many other thinks. My view (as I have said many, many times) is that it is both a social problem and a science problem. Disagreeing with you that it is not only a social problem does not mean that I think it is only a science problem.

I do not think that climate scientists should be excluded from what they are doing or from public discourse. But their expertise for addressing the problem is highly limited, and we need to assemble the right kind of knowledge for this task.

Indeed, but this isn't what you wrote in your article. Your article explictly framed it as social problem and NOT a science problem. I also think you've dodged the point that there are already many social scientists involved and, hence, it is clearly not true that it is currently being treated as a science problem only.

The problem, as I see it, is that Reiner states quite categorically that "climate change is not a scientific but a social problem... one cannot derive climate policies from climate science". The question then is: on what basis can climate policies be made? What is the social science information that could be used to make climate policies instead of the available (climate)'scientific' information?

The role of physical scientists in informing society about “solutions” auf the climate “problem” will be reduced. Social scientists will add their knowledge for informing people and decision makers about consequences of options – and will learn after a while, that in some future also their role will be diminished.

I don't think this necessary follows. You seem to be suggesting that information from social scientists will displace information from natural/physical scientists. There's no reason why it has to be the case. Information from one group could be complementary to that presented by another. They could work together. Combined it could produce a much clearer picture of the whole issue. This isn't - in my view - some kind of competition.

I think you have it on good authority (HvS) that climate science tells us nothing new or exciting with regard to addressing the problem. And you yourself admit that climate scientists are not experts in this task. So what is all the rage about? You almost sound as if you are fearful that people could come to the conclusion that the emperor has no clothes. If climate change is a task that can be solved in models but not in the real world, policy makers should listen, and re-consider the requisite expertise.

Anon

What can climate science tell us about the options that are visible about climate policy, in public discourse? I cite from my paper:

"In the public discourse on climate change, a multitude of practical solutions has been suggested. They include a rollout of nuclear power plants across the globe; a switch of all energy supply to solar, wind or biofuels; a transformation of our lifestyles; promotion of vegetarianism; a tax on carbon; implementation of an emissions trading system; geo-engineering projects; and the abolishment of capitalism."

> I hope that you are now satisfied after you so forcefully debunked the wording of Reiner.

Thank you for the kind words, Hans, but I think I actually did a bit more than that. In return, please consider that your "substance" jab may be hard to reconcile with the constant requests to "define" this or that and the fact that nobody disputed my argument so far against wickedness.

I have little time today, except to submit two other logical points:

(1) Insights from social sciences may not suffice to derive positive policies either, which implies that the argument about "deriving policies" is trivial at best. It is most probably a caricature, as for good measures, CFCs are still with us.

(2) One does not simply "define" a wicked problem, for a wicked problem is just that - a problem that escapes the analytical paradigm. To push that peanut from good ol' system theory, the very act of trying to defining things leads to a conceptual mess.

The first argument leads to the idea that there may always be a gap between a conceptual framework and what emerges from it, in this case the usual Breakthrough stuff.

The second argument leads to the idea that current argumentive mode, resting on definition games, goes against the very idea of appealing to system theory.

Moreover, following through the citations reveals that the conceptual framework is quite thin. We can observe this fact by sifting through the Hartwell paper and its ancestors. Which means that Reiner's "but wicked" argument may not be that "substantive."

Reiner,And you yourself admit that climate scientists are not experts in this task.

Indeed, but that didn't mean that I was implying that the only ones who are are social scientists. I was agreeing that there are aspects about which climate scientists would not have relevant expertise.

So what is all the rage about? You almost sound as if you are fearful that people could come to the conclusion that the emperor has no clothes.

What rage? Also, what do you mean by the emperor having no clothes? I'm assuming that you're not suggesting that somehow climate science is wrong in some fundamental way, but it's getting quite hard not to do so.

If climate change is a task that can be solved in models but not in the real world, policy makers should listen, and re-consider the requisite expertise.

You keep saying this, but I've no idea why. Why would you think this to be the case? You keep suggesting that you're not arguing for the exclusion of climate scientists, and then continually say things that makes it seem that you are. My issue with your argument is the lack of inclusivity; I'm not arguing against more social scientists getting involved.

In fact, I'll make another point, which might get to the crux of the matter - although, that might be overly optimistic. Obviously as individuals we all have the right to express our views about this topic. We should, however, endeavour to distinguish between when we're speaking as an individual and when we're speaking as a professional. We also all have the right to undertake relevant research and to present that research publicly and to communicate it to the public and to policy makers. What we don't have, is the right to directly determine policy; only those with a mandate to do so, can do so.

Given the above, I don't actually really get what you're really suggesting. If you think that there is relevant social science research that is being ignored, then present it. If you think there is social science research that is not being funded, then either apply for funding, or argue for funding to be made available. If you really think that there is material that should go into the IPCC reports, but that isn't, then point out what it is. Noone is stopping you from doing this.

So, what were you actually hoping to achieve with your article? More funding? Another IPCC chapter? More invitations to parliamentary select committee hearings? I'd be quite interested to know, because you haven't really said and it's not very clear.

"In the public discourse on climate change, a multitude of practical solutions has been suggested. They include a rollout of nuclear power plants across the globe; a switch of all energy supply to solar, wind or biofuels; a transformation of our lifestyles; promotion of vegetarianism; a tax on carbon; implementation of an emissions trading system; geo-engineering projects; and the abolishment of capitalism."

What social science information is there that might help us choose between these options? Or that could tell us how these ideas could be turned into policies, nationally and globally?

|To repeat: if you write an article claiming that climate change has been misclassified (and hence poorly handled as a result) and that this is largely because natural scientists have dominated the discourse, it's hard not to conclude that you're blaming them for this.

Sounds paranoid. Why should people be blamed when problems grow out of their scope ?

For me, science if natural or social, can help assessing the consequences of political choices in different fields; from science you can not derive "right" policies, but you can exclude policies which go with unwanted consequences.

A problem in the past was that some visible physical scientists (and ecological scientists in other nevironmental cases) have directly demanded certain political action. The time of COP15 has several examples - and in that case these people were presented in the media as authorities based on their scientific standing. This damaged the authority of sciences, which is still ooften seen as bound by Merton's norms (at least in theory) - in the same way as nuclear scientists and forest scientists did in the past.Of course it could happen, and I expect: will happen that some egocentric social scientists will act in the same way; that would be deplorable.

The suggestion is not that some social scientists join or succeed natural scientists in overselling the societal significance of their stuff; instead I would hope that they provide geenuinely social science knowldge for assessing the implication of politic al options.

I understand that we have a common ground here - that it is not the construction or derivation of the right policy, but provision of knowledge for assessing different options. Maybe the word "constraining" of options would be a good description.

I did certainly not mean that social scientists would introduce, or explain or ... whatever, natural science knowldege. This would appear rather absurd to me. No, I think they will, and already do to some extent, introduce genuinely social science knowledge into socieetal assessment and decision processes. This will inform policy makers, in the sense of constraining opptions, but not of deriving the "right" policy.

Natural sciences has achieved something, which at this time is rather remote for social sciences - building an effort to determine convergence, also on divergence, of knowledge claims, of knowledge gaps etc -- the IPCC (and little sisters like BACC). Problems I see with some social scientists is thinking in schools and of considering consistency of an argument being sufficient without systematically comparing alternative explainations (my friends don't want me to use the word "falsification").

There is a good collection of papers in here: Research Handbook on Climate Governance, (2015) edited by E. Lovbrand and K. Backstrand. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/eep/preview/book/isbn/9781783470600/

A brand new study: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1770-6 . Of course the impacts of the technological turnarounds in connection of all these "decarbonisation iterations" on the society are huge. It's the classical field of the social sciences because there are the needed skills. I can't understand the debate of some fellows here.

I think the debate centres on this paragraph (but I might be wrong): "The key issue lies with the fact that scientific insights are being used to derive policy. If climate policy is justified with science, opponents of the policy will attack the science. This logic only distracts from the problem of devising suitable policies to deal with climate change. Nevertheless, it comes to the fore time and again. This line of argument also highlights that the climate problem is not a scientific problem, but a social problem: one cannot derive climate policies from climate science. Such policies must be the result of a pragmatic decision-making process in which many more elements are involved, such as costs and benefits, acceptability, political expediency and so on." He also says that "scientific consensus is not needed to advise policy". This seems to suggest a sharp dividing line between climate science and social science, with climate science being basically portrayed as 'useless' (a dividing line that was then entrenched by Hans's comments). The article seems to say that 'pragmatic decision making' relies on all sorts of things, but not science. The article by Holly Buck looks very interesting by the way. I'd argue instead that what is really needed is (continuous and interative) dialogue between climate science and social science with both providing information that decision makers can then use to make decisions. It is not an either or thing.

> The role of physical scientists in informing society about “solutions” auf the climate “problem” will be reduced. Social scientists will add their knowledge for informing people and decision makers about consequences of options – and will learn after a while, that in some future also their role will be diminished.

Reiner's argument in his Nature op-ed goes beyond that - it argues for a change in framing the AGW mess and calls for more seats at the table for social scientists like him.

The first point kicks off his editorial, and the second finishes it off. The two ideas are connected by this counterfactual:

If social scientists had been involved significantly and from the beginning, this crucial error in categorizing climate change might have been avoided.

There are many problems with this counterfactual. Let's take the most important one. The "crucial error" is far from having been established, neither in the op-ed, nor in the Hartwell Paper (which cites Steve Rayner's autobiographical lecture), neither in the Hartwell Paper's predecessor, *How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course*, which pays lips service to Hayek's Constitution of Liberty and Berlin's "Decline of Utopians Ideals of the West". None of these two papers (Hartwell & How to Get) contain any analysis that would indicate in what ways a wicked framing justifies the Breakthrough stuff that it helps sell.

We can't witness the effect of that wicked framing on the authors' deliberations, since in at least the meetings followed Chatham rules. A more plausible explanation for the Breakthrough stuff than "that's what emerges from a wicked framing" comes from the social network of the authors of these papers. Reiner contributed to all these papers, and is basically self-citing when he handwaves to "some social scientists on the margins have been making counter-arguments for decades."

***

If we can't derive policies from the "scientific insights" of climate science, neither can we derive policies from the insights of the social sciences. That common ground we have, viz. "the construction or derivation of the right policy, but provision of knowledge for assessing different options," should also apply to "the expertise of the social sciences." Getting serious about the ought/is distinction (I'm not a fan of dichotomies, but can I play the ball where it lands, as the Auditor once said to the Bishop) means that what goes for the goose goes for the gander.

Once we accept that sciences only constrain policy options by establishing physical or social conditions, then there's no reason to accept *any* framing as crucially erroneous. Whatever ways we'd wish to envision AGW, the climatological constraints are the same for everyone.

This is why Reiner's "I argue that the reason for this failure is that [...] climate change is not a scientific but a social problem" may rub the wrong way. It's like saying that when car's muffler makes too much noise or fumes, it's not a scientific but a social problem. I could live with that language game, under the conditions that there's no such thing as a scientific "problem" anymore (say becauce the notion of problem being value-laden), and we kick *all* the scientists from the policy table.

Even if we ever come to this radical new way to reorganize our problem-solving institutions, reality still bats last.

Perhaps a better way to go along the analogy would be to say: and we kick *all* the sciences from repair shops.

This would make more explicit a possible conflation between the roles of scientists and their products.

***

I should note that the second part of my last comment underlines a second problem with Reiner's counterfactual - the relationship between the framing and the "advices." That problem echoes the one between the Wegman Report's conclusions and its recommendations, perhaps I misunderestimate its importance.

Here is the article by Roger Pielke Jr about the two definitions of climate change, one by the UN FCCC, th e other by the IPCC: http://issues.org/20-4/p_pielke-2/

The two definitions are:"The FCCC defines climate change as “a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere, and that is in addition to natural climate variability over comparable time periods.” By contrast, the IPCC defines climate change broadly as “any change in climate over time whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.”

From your comments above it is clear that you work with the FCCC definition. But why does a climate scientist not adopt the scientific definition, assuming the IPCC is closer to science than the FCCC?

Adopting the IPCC definition makes it clear that we cannot even imagine to "solve" climate change as a problem. But even in your narrow definition the stopping rule is not obvious: you say it is zero carbon emissions, or 2 deg warming compared to pre-industrial levels. Now we have 1.5 deg. as a policy goal, none of which is a scientifically established target. So the question is: when, and how do we know we have solved the problem?

The contrast to the ozone case is stark. The target was to get back to pre-industrial levels of chlorine loading and we now have empirical studies measuring the validity of the theory and the effectiveness of policies.

Willard

As TPP and others here realize, social science knowledge is essential to get to grips with an understanding of the issue of CC. Nowhere can we assume a linear transfer of knowledge into decisions. But some of that social science knowledge will have the form of expertise, which is knowledge appropriate for decision making (outlining courses of action and their consequences).

Anon 49

You misinterpret my quote "Such policies must be the result of a pragmatic decision-making process in which many more elements are involved, such as costs and benefits, acceptability, political expediency and so on."

"many more elements" of course refers to knowledge from climate science, as the context makes clear.

Reiner,From your comments above it is clear that you work with the FCCC definition.

I shall quote what I said:So, no, I don't want to limit the definition to anthropogenic aspects only. However, given that the dominant factor over the coming decades is likely to be us, and given that it is the factor over which we have some control, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be the current focus.

Given that my response to your question (Do you want to limit the definition of climate change to its anthropogenic aspects?) was no, it's pretty hard to understand why you're claiming that it's clear that I work with the FCCC definition.

Adopting the IPCC definition makes it clear that we cannot even imagine to "solve" climate change as a problem.

You keep using "solve", which is not really the term I would use. However, whether you agree or not, the current evidence suggests that the dominant (which doesn't mean only) driver of change in the coming decades will probably be us. Therefore addressing the possible risks associate with climate change in the coming decades (or century) will require dealing with our emissions - assuming we choose to do so. That other things can cause the climate to change, doesn't mean that we're not capable of addressing what likely carries the greatest risks in the near future (i.e., this coming century).

But even in your narrow definition the stopping rule is not obvious: you say it is zero carbon emissions, or 2 deg warming compared to pre-industrial levels.

I didn't say "or". All I pointed out was that whether your target is a temperature, or a carbon budget, they both require getting to zero emissions. If net anthropogenic emissions are non-zero, then CO2 will continue to accumulate in the atmosphere and we will continue to warm. Of course, we could get emissions low enough that we warm so slowly that it isn't really noticeable against the background variations, but that would probably require ~90% reductions, which might not be zero, but close enough in this context.

So the question is: when, and how do we know we have solved the problem

See above.

Here's a key point, I think. Your argument is that this is really a social problem, not a science problem and yet you're justifying this on the basis of an interpretation of the scientific evidence (there are many things that can cause climate to change and therefore we can't solve climate change, for example). Whether or not your interpretations are correct, it's hard to see how you can argue that it's a social problem only, if you need to then use interpretations of the scientific evidence in order to do so.

The contrast to the ozone case is stark. The target was to get back to pre-industrial levels of chlorine loading and we now have empirical studies measuring the validity of the theory and the effectiveness of policies.

The contrast to the ozone case is stark. The target is to get back to pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxideloading and we now have empirical studies measuring the validity of the theory. Sadly a well funding campaign with the aide of social scientists (ok marketing professionals who are applied social scientists) has blocked adoptation of effective policies.

Eli, I think you are falling prey to the very biased framing Rainer is talking about.

Is it really possible to get CO2 levels back to preindustrial even if optimistic mitigation policies are in place? It is almost certainly not possible. The question here is as Rainer points out far more complex. You also are showing bias on the relative state of the science. We do know CO2 warms the planet. But as in all policy questions, the question of how much is critical. Even the IPCC acknowledges that is only very approximately known.

As i pointed out earlier, the cost of giving up CFC's were small. Barring a technological breakthrough, which is indeed possible if investment is high enough, the costs of mitigating CO2 are large and will impact everyones energy usage and lifestyle, including yours. Difficult choices that many will dislike, such as nuclear and fracking will need to be considered. I don't think just continuing to deny Rainer's point is really helping you persuade him.

I would add to that. In a democratic society it is a fundamental right to dismiss scientific results for decision making. Actually it is done all the time in politics.The core of Reiners point is that one has to convince the people.The problem description and the analysis is the domain of scientists, but the decision about corrective actions and its implementation belongs to the people and is the domain of politics. Everybody enters in this domain as a citizen.

Yes, Gunter, I agree. A further problem with Eli's comment is the attempt to blame unnamed "social scientists" for the lack of action. Scapegoating unnamed witches does not help anyone and merely makes Eli's proposed solutions less likely to be listened to seriously by the public all of whom as you say should have a say in this.

I expected more logical coherence from you as a physicist. What you have done in your last comment sounds like an exercise in (bad) sophistry: "So, no, I don't want to limit the definition to anthropogenic aspects only. However, given that the dominant factor over the coming decades is likely to be us, and given that it is the factor over which we have some control, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be the current focus."

Just because you put the word No there does not make it a statement that confirms your No position, as the following sentence spells out that you want to stick to the FCCC definition because anthropogenic factors should be "the current focus".

I want to ask you again: when, and how do we know we have solved the problem of climate change? Which observation in what timeframe would tell us that we have been successful?

Reiner,I expected more logical coherence from you as a physicist. What you have done in your last comment sounds like an exercise in (bad) sophistry:

Hmm, so you think that it's logically incoherent to point out that many factors could lead to a change in something, but that there could be circumstances where one factor dominates?

Instead of me answering your question (I'm not the one who has written a nature article advocating for a change in how we look at this issue) can we go back to the end of my last comment. You now appear to be justifying your views on the basis of how we define climate change, what causes it to change, and how we might determine if it has been solved (and - as I've said before - I don't think "solved" is the right way to look at this). All of these appear to be scientific judgements - the climate is a natural/physical system, understanding what causes it to change is natural/physical science, and determining what we might do to address this is fundamentally founded in natural/physical sciences. Therefore, your conclusion that it is a social, not a scientific, problem appears to be founded on an interpretation of the scientific evidence. Here are my questions:

1. If it is an interpretation of the scientific evidence that underpins your argument that it is a social, not a scientific, problem, how can it be only a social problem? If you want to argue that it is a social problem, and not a scientific problem, surely you can't use an interpretation of the scientific evidence to underpin your argument?

2. As a social scientists, in what way do you have the relevant expertise to draw the conclusions that you have? Surely, if interpretations of the scientific evidence underpin how we should view something, then it's crucial that those who best understand that evidence are involved in drawing that conclusion?

I don't see a basis for productive dialogue if you refuse to answer questions.

And the fact that I have written an article does not mean that I am "in the dock". Unless, of course, you have no interest in a discussion which is very much the impression you have now created.

We know from your comments that you think CC is a physical science problem. I have argued that there is a literature in the social sciences that describes tame problems as cases where a technocratic approach might work, because these problems have a clear solution. Where we have wicked problems no such prospect is on the cards. Simple point really.

Reiner,I don't see a basis for productive dialogue if you refuse to answer questions.

Personally, I think dialogue involves more than simply one party answering questions. YMMV, of course. I'm not in the dock either. FWIW, I think your question is ill-posed. Have we solved the ozone hole?

Unless, of course, you have no interest in a discussion which is very much the impression you have now created.

I'm the one who came here.

We know from your comments that you think CC is a physical science problem.

You may think this, but it's not true. It does appear that explicitly telling you my views isn't enough to stop you from making up what you think they are?

I have argued that there is a literature in the social sciences that describes tame problems as cases where a technocratic approach might work, because these problems have a clear solution. Where we have wicked problems no such prospect is on the cards. Simple point really.

Indeed, very simple. Being simple doesn't make it right. Whether you agree or not (and it seems that you don't) the current evidence suggests that the dominant change to our climate in the current decades will be driven by our emissions. Addressing the possible risks associated with this will require reducing net anthropogenic emissions. Deciding whether or not to do so, how to do so, how fast to do so, etc, are clearly difficult and complex issues that will be informed by many different disciplines. The basics, however, are simple.

I think the time for this argument was a couple of decades ago when Steve Rayner first made it. It now seems not so relevant - much of this has been worked out. There is no longer any framing around rational scientific solutions to stabilise climate - instead it's a messy bottom-up approach based on a range of metrics including carbon budgets, temperature limits (as a proxy for intolerable impacts), country pledges and so on.And if it's a wicked problem (as we argued in Chapter 2, WGII - Hi Hans!) then you don't throw out one group because their job is done, which it isn't. The main task for the science now is to characterise risk, then there is the job of negotiating that with perceived risk, political risk and so on. There is a job of work in making those risks tractable in management terms, which involves working through a range of perspectives. You can't do without social scientists, but nor can you do without negotiators, practitioners and a whole bunch of people not involved in academia. You may as well tell all academics to get out of the room (or back to barracks!) because the thinking has been done - now to the doing.On that basis, the correspondence to Nurture seems one-dimensional and passe. After all, it has spawned much of the arguing past each other up-thread.Oh, and on the two definitions of climate change - the negotiators have decided they are dealing with the whole of climate as advised by the IPCC, and recognised by the negotiators themselves.

Hi, Roger, nice to hear from you!The barracks (with two r's, ok) - I do not see what natural scientists in their often 1-dimensional view of the world can add -as natural scientists- any longer to the political process, after the main mechanisms have been clarified (manifestation, detection, attrbution and thus sensitivity of elevated GHG levels). What some see their role is to add one risk to the next and forget about the compounding or maybe even dominant factors. The effect is that people do not listen any more - overselling goes with a cost. Maybe diffferently in diffferent cultures, sure. Therefore I find the role auf natural scentists strongly reduced.There are some significant aspects left: role of clouds and radiation, role of small scale variability in the ocean, to name two. These are scientifically important issues, but will not really matter for the societal decision processes.We need to become better in assessing multiple stressors, We need to learn hwo different cultures lead to different framing etc. We need to learn how natural scientists are conditioned by their cultural bagage. These insights will have an influence in the decision processes, I expect.What i see is natural scientists areguing publicly as natural scientists, not as Mister Smith, that this and that political decision must be taken - with the authority of physicists or ecologists. That is what I mean with "back to the barracks" - study your clouds and eddies in the barracks, where wou do it anyway, and when you leave the barracks, then come without uniform and medals of superior ability to decide rightly.

Hans, I agree that ATTP and Rainer are closer than they realize. One thing that has always puzzled me about the dysfunctional messy climate debate is why there is not more agreement on obvious things such as adaptation and changing our energy systems for efficiency and lower cost. There are cheaper and cleaner energy technologies than coal such as nuclear power and CH4. They also happen to reduce CO2 emissions. If half the time spent on parsing words were spent on trying to implement some obvious choices, all would benefit. I think this point may be a corollary of Rainer's point about framing. It seems to me framing climate change using CFC experience actually ironically makes real action less likely because it encourages unrealistic thinking.

thanks for your very useful comment. As I mentioned in my comment, too, the call for social sciences is from the last century. It was heard, and in the following conceptions of climate research (as well as conceptions of climate politics) changed profoundly.

Hans,

you wrote in comment #47 "Natural sciences has achieved something, which at this time is rather remote for social sciences - building an effort to determine convergence, also on divergence, of knowledge claims, of knowledge gaps etc -- the IPCC (and little sisters like BACC)."

This is really a strange statement, especially because you were a lead author of the IPCC WG2, Chapter 2 "Foundations for decision making", as Roger reminds us correctly (with me as contributing author, by the way). In this chapter we presented exactly the summary that you ask for. Maybe you forgot, but it indeed describes climate change as a wicked problem; it gives a detailed summary of (some of) the efforts and insights of social sciences how to deal with this challenge, and it does in no way exclude or replace climate science. Instead, the chapter defines new tasks for climate science and climate services based on the work of social sciences; the focus is on the interactions between science and stakeholders of all sorts, including other forms of knowledge and taking into account the place-based effects of climate. I am really surprised that you now want to send climate science back into the barracks, redefine the role of social science and reduce it to a form of policy assessment. In my understanding, the IPCC chapter goes far beyond this.

Of course, many social sciences do not produce data that are comparable to scientific data; many of their data are based not on a distanced view, but instead on the close involvement in the field and the view from inside - for example, when it comes to the task of co-developing narratives that fit the current challenges and open up new possibilities for collective decision making. Collaborative research, digital cultures (including science), actor-network theory, situated knowledge, extended peer groups are just some keywords that are transcending the nature / culture and science / politics divide, replacing it with new forms of assemblages, entanglements and networks as fields for collaborative research.

By the way, there was a time in Hamburg, when some climate scientists indeed worked in barracks. But these barracks are long demolished and replaced by a multi-million Euro research center, which is currently build. Climate science changed politics profoundly in putting climate change onto the agenda, and in doing so, they changed the role of science in society. In reality and metaphorically speaking, there are no barracks any more to go back to.

Yes, I agree, the basics are simple. The physics of greenhouse gases is more than a hundred years old and now common knowledge. But it does not tell us what to about it.

I take your statement that you do do not think 'solution' is an appropriate word to describe our dealing with climate change as some sort of support of my argument. If problem solving in the strict sense (as I asked you to provide) is not available, then we do have a wicked problem. Or what other word would you use instead?

Roger

Something being passé is not a good argument for ignoring it. After all it was Arrenhius who cam eup with the greenhouse theory 120 years ago. So we could have said 120 times that his theory was passe. Steve Rayner's point still stands and needs recognition. As I point out in the piece for Nature, this view was marginal, and it still is. it is even seen as a provocation, as this thread makes clear.

Werner

I think you misinterpret Hans's barrack metaphor. BTW, climate science has put CC on the political agenda, but its initial framing has proved counterproductive. Undoubtedly there is now more social science involvement, but the terms of the trade are clear. Any questioning of the dominance of physical sciences is treated with suspicion, ranging from outright rejection to arrogant dismissal.

Reiner,I take your statement that you do do not think 'solution' is an appropriate word to describe our dealing with climate change as some sort of support of my argument.

I'm sure you'll take it, but I've no idea why. The idea that me not answering a question somehow validates your argument is a little strange. I will note that you haven't answered my questions either.

Any questioning of the dominance of physical sciences is treated with suspicion, ranging from outright rejection to arrogant dismissal.

Possibly because it's not obvious why questioning the dominance is really an argument (I will add that you're not just questioning the dominance, you're arguing for its entire dismissal). If you think you have relevant information that is not being considered, and should be, why not present the actual information, instead of insisting that it be treated like a social problem (rather than a scientific one) before doing so?

I'll repeat what I've said many, many times. I'm not arguing against more social science involvement in this topic; I simply think that it is neither simply a social problem, nor a scientific problem. Also, as Roger and Werner indicate, there is already extensive involvement. I fail to see how we can solve any problem (wicked or tame) if we dismiss relevant information.

I am not dismissing information. The Greenhouse theory is common knowledge, and modelling efforts with their metrics provide information. You know that the point I am making is a different one, but I think we have exhausted our repertoire of arguments. We have to agree to disagree.

H.vS: (65) Among other things (and there are many), what physical science can contribute are estimates of risk (64) and physical ways of eliminating emissions and evaluations of there efficiency, unless you believe in magic. Oh wait. . .(56)

my grandfather told me how to play in traffic and to mistrust people who think they are right. This was good advice, too.I think that also is the core of Hans' and Reiners argument. Decision making under wicked conditions is for my experience hampered by people who think they are right. They stick too long to bad choices and shy away from playing in the traffic. Making the right choices at each step in time is not the same as being right about some effect in science.

I find the argument that the social sciences have been excluded for the climate discourse, and that in their absence physical scientists have mis-framed the social issue, rather amazing. For one thing, the idea that social scientists are masters of political manipulation and propaganda -- which is implied by the assertion that they are not merely able to DESCRIBE social conditions, but, in effect, are social engineers capable of effortlessly rousing mass enthusiasm for expensive & concerted efforts addressed at gradually unfolding, incomprehensibly large-in-scale problems -- is, to put it mildly, optimistic.

The only social scientists with any claims to that sort of practical influence are, of course, the Marxists, and their credibility was somewhat attenuated by their repeated complicity in the mass murders of tens of millions of people in a series of genocidal purges which, however, did not save their social-scientist-engineered societies from stagnation, poverty, and finally ruin. So I think it is fair to say the record of social scientists as real-life psychoengineers has been mixed.

Climate change is not "solved" to scientists satisfaction -- there is much more to know & understand. Politically it is a fairly simple problem: create a strong international consensus for reducing GHG emissions to zero. The social scientists have a free field there. Only if they are ignorant of the dynamics human behavior, or gross incompetent, can they long fail at this task. We will judge them by their fruits!

Practically, though, the discourse still needs natural scientists, as many or probably more than it can get. The natural sciences can tell us how a proposed strategy, or compromise, or sacrifice effects the overall picture. They can continue to sharpen the picture of the costs, benefits and alternatives. They can advocate for nature -- the natural sciences employ the greatest lovers of nature on earth. That perspective is valuable.

The person who calls natural scientists "one-dimensional" is, I am afraid, too ignorant of what actual natural scientists are like to value their contributions accurately.

"What i see is natural scientists areguing publicly as natural scientists, not as Mister Smith, that this and that political decision must be taken - with the authority of physicists or ecologists. That is what I mean with "back to the barracks" - study your clouds and eddies in the barracks, where wou do it anyway, and when you leave the barracks, then come without uniform and medals of superior ability to decide rightly."

So, Hans, when ecologists tell you what will be the likely effects of 𝑥, 𝘺, or 𝑧 ° C of global warming, you'll be coming out from you barrack sans "uniform and medals of superior ability to decide rightly"?

Or is it just "natural scientists" that should argue publicly not as natural scientists, and that certain climate researchers and sociologists can argue, with their uniforms and medals of superior ability to decide rightly (even though it's not their area of expertise), on the ecological sequelæ of global warming?

the point was talking about policy options and decisions: without uniform and medals of superior ability to decide rightly". Our robust knowldge - that it has become that much warmer, that the number of storms goes up or down, we certain shall say. We provide this knowledge through regional climate services and will tell journalists that expectation of temperatures above 50C in Germany are not realistic. Then we leave the barracks with uniforms indicating our superior knowledge about the change that is going on in geophysical terms and about likely perspectives. But these numbers do not imply decisions, but they may constrain descisions.

And indeed, some ecologists invent their own climatology, as do geologists, physicists etc. - we had that when we constructed the regional climate change (knowledge) report BACC - and we were able to tell our colleagues to stick to their field of competence.

I admit that my metaphor may need an extensive explanation, because it may be easily misread. Why don't you try to rewrite, Bernard, it so that it would properly describe what you want to see?

you write: "Then we leave the barracks with uniforms indicating our superior knowledge about the change that is going on in geophysical terms and about likely perspectives."

I think, this military metaphor is not really fortunate. Scientists are not generals informing the public on the war on climate, based on calculations or field observations. There is no war, there is no "Notstand" (political state of emergency), and scientists are not commanders in chief. Remember when we wrote as a summary about a postnormal science workshop: "Ist es an der Zeit, dass die Wissenschaftler ihren weißen Kittel ausziehen und den Kontakt mit der Gesellschaft und Politik auf ein neues Fundament stellen?" ("Isn't it time to take off the white coat and to build a new fundament for the contact with society and politics?").

We did not mean to change the white coat for the uniform, I guess; instead, we argued for more democratic forms of conversation with society and politics.

Communicating information is not an easy task, and this is why we finished our summary with the insight that instead of insisting on the top down routine, science should become part and parcel of societal conversation. Scientific knowledge is not "superior" to the knowledge of farmers who survived for generations on arid lands, for example. This is called respect, the foundation for effective communication and mutual learning. This is why I consider the "the general speaks with superior knowledge" metaphor unfortunate and counter productive.

Werner,I thought white coats are the uniforms of many natural scientists - is that an invalid characterization? My suggestion to Bernard is also to you. Why don't you try to understand what I intended to describe, and maybe you find a better metaphor?

But, my view is: Scientifically constructed knowledge about the state and dynamics of the gephysical climate system is superior to that of lay people. Maybe, you have a different knowledge about the term "knowledge", which makes my knowledge inferior to yours - but the way you present your views as "it is so, no doubt", is indicating that you consider your own konwlegde as superior, at least compared to mine.

Of course, knowledge presented by scientists, but not constructed with the scientific method (which includes comparing (ideally: all) different possible explanations), is as good as any other knowledge claim. An example would be an op-ed of mine in a newspaper on the role of physical climate science in forming climate policy.

Hans, now I am confused: you wear your uniform (white coat), when you present your superior scientific knowledge to the public, and you take it off, when you write an op-ed. Correct? It is so difficult to understand the rituals of esoteric cultures that mostly prefer to hide in barracks.

I think claims of superiority will not help much when it comes to understanding climate change as a wicked problem. And no, the (natural) scientific method is not the only legitimate form of representation; social sciences, science studies, and humanities have a lot of questions concerning objectivity and comparability, for example, and they know other methods, too. But you know that well, we discussed this already ad nauseam. What counts as science is a wicked problem, too, obviously - and it is a question of power and influence. From this perspective, climate science sometimes is help and problem at the same time when it comes to deal with climate change.

I must admit that I'm slightly confused about Hans' point now, so it would be interesting to clarify. It certainly seems that researchers who speak publicly should be careful to make clear what role they are taking. Is it as an expert presenting relevant information, in which case they should aim to stick to presenting the evidence, or is it an individual with an opinion that might be formed by considering the evidence, but that doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's opinion. If that's roughly what Hans is suggestion, then I agree.

However, something that I do think should be born in mind is that most scientists regard the scientific evidence as value neutral. This isn't to say that scientists aren't biased, but that our overall understanding of some physical system shouldn't be (and many would suggest isn't) influence by our values. Therefore, scientists will typically not change what they might say simply because there is a chance that some people might object.

TTP - I think you are summarizing my point pretty well. Some second thoughts may reveal some second order differences, but within the accuracy of our informal discussion: fine with me.

Werner - What means "... method is [a] .. legitimate form of representation"? I have difficulties understanding the word "presentation".- "Claims of superiority will not help ... to understanding climate change as a wicked problem" - I suggest that a topology of the available knowledge claims will help to understand the issues better. My claim of superiority concerns certain knowledge claims, not others. Differentiating our assertions may be helpful. - "From this perspective, climate science sometimes is help and problem at the same time when it comes to deal with climate change." - here, we would agree; I did not speak about the question of "how to deal with climate change" but about the state and dynamics of the geophysical climate system.- We have indeed discussed a lot in the past, not really ad nauseam but in a friendly and mostly constructive manner, but discussing a lot does not imply acceptance of the position of the other person.

"Environmentalists and politicians have the unfortunate habit of phrasing the need for climate policy as a scientific imperative (Grundmann 2016, Grundmann 2007, Matthews 2016). The science has spoken, and we must act. This is a categorical error. Science tells you what would happen if. It does not tell us what to do (Pielke 2007)."

"It certainly seems that researchers who speak publicly should be careful to make clear what role they are taking. Is it as an expert presenting relevant information, in which case they should aim to stick to presenting the evidence..."

Sounds good in theory but what does this mean in practice? That scientists do not use their institutional affiliation when signing letters, petitions? Then they would need to insist that the mass media do not use their titles etc. in broadcasts. Do scientists have control over this?

And why does the media give such prominence to the opinion of scientists? They seem to think it makes a difference if they quote a scientist rather any "individual with an opinion that might be formed by considering the evidence"

The communication of scientific results would require a lot of disclaimers and caveats.

In this context the following clip (John Oliver) might be amusing and thought provoking which I found on Judith Curry's bloghttps://youtu.be/0Rnq1NpHdmw

But, perhaps most importantly, this discussion seems oblivious of Dan Sarewitz's points about the current predicament of science.

Reiner,Sounds good in theory but what does this mean in practice? That scientists do not use their institutional affiliation when signing letters, petitions? Then they would need to insist that the mass media do not use their titles etc. in broadcasts. Do scientists have control over this?

Personally, I don't think it really means that much in practice, other than an expectation that this is how scientists/researchers should conduct themselves. It's already the case that institutions will criticise those who use their affiliations when it isn't appropriate. Researchers should, IMO, make clear when they're talking professionally, and when they're expressing their personal opinion, but I don't think we can formally legislate this. We can't impose rules on scientists that don't apply to everyone else; they're still members of the public. Also, this shouldn't just apply to scientists; it should really apply to anyone who has relevant expertise but who might choose to express their own opinion about a topic.

And why does the media give such prominence to the opinion of scientists?

Why do they give such prominence to celebrities? Again, we can't legislate to prevent this. If others think that they have more relevant information they could try presenting it.

But, perhaps most importantly, this discussion seems oblivious of Dan Sarewitz's points about the current predicament of science.

If you've read my blog recently you'll know that I'm not oblivious of Dan Sarewitz's points. I just thought they weren't very good.

not sure if you asked for this, but here some thoughts about representation (somehow off-topic, sorry):

Representation is a key word in science studies and related disciplines. We have no immediate access to reality. Art, literature, science or religion are different forms of representation of reality. Bach and Newton represented the universe in different ways; Balzac, the novelist, and Durkheim, the sociologist, both represented society; Hindu religion represents the planet populated with Gods and people, NASA represents earth as a fragile blue planet free of humans. There are many interconnections, of course. The color Red represents the power of the church, alarm on public signs or heat in a scientific climate graph - in our culture, at least. Red is a symbol that carries many connotations, even when used in science. (It is better to know this, otherwise red lives a life of its own and distorts your results).

In the last quarter of the last century, there was a "crisis of representation": the politics of representations came into focus. We discussed this a lot in anthropology, for example. Anthropologists realized that their forefathers did not simply represent other cultures, but they used literary techniques, preconceived ideas about nature and culture or biological tropes to represent the others (and to negate colonial influence) - somehow, they invented the others (with doubtful results, see the debate about Orientalism by Edward Said, for example).

One technique of representation to deal with the own bias in anthropology is "thick description" - a technique which resembles more Rembrandt's paintings than statistical accounts, for example. But nobody doubts that Clifford Geertz, who promoted this method, is an academic scholar, and his representations of the others count as scientific.

Natural scientific representations are not more exact, they are simply different. To represent the dynamics of geophysical climate, science needs graphs, metaphors, colours, fundings, politics, negotiations, peer review, press conferences, and so on. Science studies opened this blackbox, long before Climategate, by the way. The discussion about the white coat, the schizophrenic split between "scientist" and citizen" in one person; the authoritative insistence on being a "superior form of knowledge", are indicators that the authority of science is shattered. Jerry Ravetz compares this with the role of Gutenberg for the authority of the church. Today, with big data, with the Internet, with science mixing 19th century ideals with neoliberal market ideology, science obviously struggles to find its rightful place in society (as our postnormal friends call it). Here, I guess, the discussion about representation comes in. There is no way back to innocence, because there never was. And it is a challenge to discuss this in the current situation, because we need science so urgently to counter the idiotic arguments of populism. A real double-bind, again.

Wernerer: “Natural scientific representations are not more exact, they are simply different. To represent the dynamics of geophysical climate, science needs graphs, metaphors, colours, fundings, politics, negotiations, peer review, press conferences, and so on. .. The discussion about the white coat, the schizophrenic split between "scientist" and citizen" in one person; the authoritative insistence on being a "superior form of knowledge", are indicators that the authority of science is shattered.”Thanks for explaining how one discipline represents others. I would suggest that there are others. Mary Hesse, the philosopher of science, call different representations in physics “models”, even though her usage of the term “model” is only partly consistent with that in climate science. A key part of the scientific method is to look after alternatives of representations, and, much more and significantly so, of understandings. Could I build an explanation, which is also consistent with the evidence (whatever that is), but different from my favored or hypothesized explanation? Do I observe correctly that you consider your representation of the state of knowledge as “correct”? My observation of you is that you have a school of thought, i.e., a specific representation, in your mind and interpret based on this school of thought. You yourself seem to claim that your knowledge, äh, representation, is superior. And I indeed insist on that I have superior knowledge about certain aspect of dynamics and state of the climate system than lay people, simply because I have studied these issues with the scientific method. In your case, I do not see the quest for challenging explanations systematically. You use some episodes for making your explanations, your specific representations, plausible, which makes them to legitimate hypotheses, but no more. There may be equally powerful and simpler explanations inconsistent with yours.But, let us adopt your view, that the scientific representation of the dynamics etc. (which has undergone a lengthy challenging within the scientific community, and confrontations of continuously incoming new evidence) would command no more authority than other representations, of a farmer, for instance. Let us consider the claims of AfD; I have been interviewed to the knowledge claims by Axel Bojanowksi and have asserted, based on my superior knowledge as natural scientist: „Die AfD schreibt, Klimamodelle seien falsch, weshalb der Klimawandel nicht bewiesen sei - das ist eine erschreckend ahnungslose Haltung. Einerseits haben die Modelle zwar Mängel, sie sind ja nur ein reduziertes Abbild der Realität, doch sie liefern brauchbare Ergebnisse. Zudem gibt es viele andere Indizien für einen menschengemachten Klimawandel, die von der AfD ignoriert werden.“ Following your argumentation, then merely some inconsistent representations would collide. Why should you believe my assertion and not that of AfD? They would possible depict warming in blue, making it less severe! I guess, I know the answer – because my explanation resonates better with your school of thought.Your assertion “To represent the dynamics of geophysical climate, science needs graphs, metaphors, colours, fundings, politics, negotiations, peer review, press conferences, and so on.” mixes different processes. Present to whom? When we condense our knowledge into a theory, we do not need metaphors, but we need concepts and mathematics. Try to do once in your life a scientific analysis of a simple problem of disentangling climate dynamics or of determining the climate state. You are all too often just describing the surface of what is going on.Your final assertion “the authoritative insistence on being a "superior form of knowledge", are indicators that the authority of science is shattered.“ I find difficult to understand. First “being a” points to a person? And, where do you think the “authority of science” comes from – because people have been tricked into such a belief?

Maybe part of your dispute hinges on a position on 'science'. You seem to have different concepts about what science is and what makes it valuable or powerful in society. Your exchange harks back to many many debates we had on this blog about the relation between science and society. What occurs to me is that we do not seem to make much progress in terms of resolving differences. Hans claims science is better knowledge because it is based on something called 'the scientific method', whereas Werner says science cannot be understood separately from society and has many other ingredients apart from 'the scientific method'.

My suggestion would be to change the conceptual framework, from science and scientists to expertise and experts. As soon as we do this we realize that it is not a specific method that makes one body of knowledge 'superior' but a detailed knowledge of a domain area. People who know a lot about something will normally outfox people who know less and thus establish their 'superiority.' This is what Werner does when it comes to social relations and the role of knowledge and culture. Hans does the same on the level of detection, attribution, modelling of climate change.

Of course there are other aspects to the entangled debate, such as Hans's insistence on the Popperian principle of falsification. This is not shared universally among scientists, and, after Kuhn, claimed by some historians of science to be a myth or rhetorical device rather than practice. See Dan Saewitz's argument in the other post.

Of course it helps to categorize a problem.Not so much in finding a solution, but rather in the approach of the problem solving strategy towards a solution. Interesting enough politics for my opinion did not choose the scientific approach towards a solution.

Ich denke das hängt vom Text ab den Obama abgegeben hat. Im Abkommen steht:"In their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, regional economic integration organizations shall declare the extent of their competence with respect to the matters governed by this Agreement. These organizations shall also inform the Depositary, who shall in turn inform the Parties, of any substantial modification in the extent of their competence."

Sorry das gilt wohl für die EU.Aber der Text für Staten ist ähnlich:"This Agreement shall be open for signature and subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties to the Convention. It shall be open for signature at the United Nations Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017. Thereafter, this Agreement shall be open for accession from the day following the date on which it is closed for signature. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary."Dass heißt Zustimmung genügt, ob es von Obama ratifiziert wurde hängt vom Text ab.

What if we have already used up the carbon budget? Some argue that this may well be the case: http://www.climatecodered.org/2016/09/unravelling-myth-of-carbon-budget-for.html

This comment is silent about what it means to 'draw down every ton of carbon from today onwards'.

It also makes assumptions of some nations not being able to adapt to a world of 1 degree warming, let alone 1.5 or 2.

Andreas

With regard to your argument about 'existing technologies to remove emissions' -- the question is at what cost, in which timeframe. I recommend watching Mark Lynas' interview with David MacKayhttps://klimazwiebel.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/david-mackay-1967-2016.html

I don't think we have technologies that can be implemented at scale. This is why carbon tax as only instrument is unlikely to word (see my comment on Richard Tol). We need government money spent on R&DD on new, zero carbon, cheap and safe technologies.

I don't think we have technologies that can be implemented at scale. This is why carbon tax as only instrument is unlikely to word (see my comment on Richard Tol). We need government money spent on R&DD on new, zero carbon, cheap and safe technologies.

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.